One Third of Americans reject The Evolution Theory

Creationist theory

Creationist theory… An exhibit on Adam and Eve at he Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, The museum tells the Bible’s version of Earth’s history – that the planet was created in a single week just a few thousand years ago. Source

The Article below which explains itself and tries to show people who do not believe Evolution are rejecting a Paradigm  because it is difficult to grasp, and then the article explains why we do not understand Evolution  because it is too difficult for us to understand and explains.  Of  course the bottom line of the Article is that those who do not believe Evolution are wrong and they are right. Yet their Evolution is a theory and try to say today Evolution has been proved, when it has not. Evolution is purely a theory and we do not see half  man half ape and when somewhere on the earth they find a skeleton on the earth that look close to ape, they say they have found the proof. This Theory is fanciful.

My name is Hendrik as you know and I have a Web Site called www.youmustrepent.com as well www.revelationyoucanunderstand.com  and I am a solid Servant of Jesus Christ.
Also I am not a Creationist that is popular with the Church Denominations in this time, era 2014. That put the earth about 6000 BC.

I am a person who is in God’s Kingdom and I use my Christian Bible and also I agree with the Scientists who over the years who put the Earth Billions of years etc.

I do say the question the Evolution cannot answer is where the matter came into existence and I notice a clever person has proved matter can exist in time and then not exist. To say that the Universe and all we see came by chance is ridiculously fanciful.

Evolution of the  species such as us, we notice in the family tree. The Bible New Testament we see it starts with Jesus and goes back to Adam the son of God
Jesus Christ we see about 30 AD is also a son of God so as far as mankind evaluated from the ocean and then crawling onto the land and evaluated into the people we see today is purely fanciful.

If you know me better you will know I talk about common sense and I believe all life should be about common sense.

As you know from my other www.youmustrepent.com  my recommendation is for you and people to hunt out knowledge that includes what you learn in Education, University, Colleges, Books and all other Media and then you made a common sense stance about what you believe .

It is important for you to do the research and hunt down information, you cannot be lazy. If you take the short cut and simply listen the a person or organisation you can be completed cheated and you life can be for nothing.

Even Jesus Christ never shoves beliefs  into people faces and say you must believe. The last book Bible in Revelation in the 7 Churches say you  ears and so hear and then you make decisions. God of course offers absolute freedom. Jesus Christ offers freedom and you notice, Governments, People, Churches, Denominations and groups lord over people forcing people to act in a way that suites their group.

Jesus Christ gives you an invite to come to him and God, Jesus is full of pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, all good things, no insincerity , no uncertainty. This is God’s offer to you. You can hear or not.

So I am putting a case to you.
Read about Evolution, Read about information that suites you and also do not forget God, Jesus. Put all the information you find and then make decisions as to what you believe

as you know I am a Christian and I serve the living God and the Bible is what I use to know about God.

Have a read the information below is interesting to read.

Cheers

Hendrik

 

Story below source
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/science/are-the-very-mental-shortcuts-our-brain-has-evolved-for-efficiency-working-against-the-acceptance-of-evolution/story-fnjwl5wr-1226792981781?from=public_rss

Are Americans evolving into stupid?, Americans, America, New

…………………………………………

Are the very mental shortcuts our brain has evolved for efficiency working against the acceptance of evolution?

IS evolution itself driving America’s growing rejection of modern biology? New studies suggest this very thing.

Today’s revelation that a quarter of the US population rejects the idea of evolution and instead believes we were created through intelligent intervention is nothing new.

The fact that only a third of us accept that “natural processes such as natural selection” are behind our existence has had science thinking for some time.

Creationism is growing into a powerful political force. But the strength of their arguments and the forcefulness of their campaign does not entirely explain its growing success.

The debate has heated up in recent years as and a so-called “culture war” is being waged across a deepening partisan divide.

RELATED: 1 in 3 Americans reject evolution

So why does the concept of evolution cause so much upset in an era overwhelmed with science – be it in medicine, transport, communication and calculation?

“Natural selection is like quantum physics … we might intellectually grasp it, with considerable effort, but it will never feel right to us,” writes the Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.

It’s about the nature of our brain. It’s an amazing device at finding new and successful ways to adapting to an ever-changing world – with the minimum of effort.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Have your (polite) say in the comment box at the bottom of this story.

The brain has evolved, psychologists argue, to conserve its energy and speed up its processes through a series of “mental shortcuts”.

This “unwillingness” to expend mental energy may be behind the difficulty of accepting complex ideas such as evolution.

Those shortcuts affecting the evolution-versus-creation debate include:

Intuition gap? Why do some find angels more believable than neanderthals?

Intuition gap? Why do some find angels more believable than neanderthals? Source: Supplied

 

CATEGORISATION: Our brains like neat, clearly defined categories. It helps filing things away in our memories easier. Called “essentialism”, scientists feel this mental characteristic makes us want to think of different animal species as fundamentally different – instead of fundamentally similar. It makes sense: Birds have wings. Fish have fins. Accepting that they have a common ancestor appears on the surface to be counterintuitive. Understanding that similarity takes time and effort – something our brain’s are not naturally inclined to do.

Time to think? One of many internet meme's tackling the science versus creationis...

Time to think? One of many internet meme’s tackling the science versus creationism debate. Source: Supplied

 

CHALLENGED COMPREHENSION: The universe operates on a scale far, far vaster than the human world. Be it time. Be it space. Both are incomprehensible to most of us. And those that do need abstracts, such as mathematical equations, to give it a form of perspective.

This makes the concept of many small changes accumulating over the course of millennia push the boundaries of our comprehension. What is millennia anyway? It means little to an individual whose lifespan extends a mere 80 or so years.

It’s not an intuitive concept. It doesn’t fit with what we’ve experienced. Therefore the brain argues it isn’t “common sense”.

Tough task ... Deep thought is not an activity our brains like to engage in, science suggests.

Tough task … Deep thought is not an activity our brains like to engage in, science suggests. Source: Supplied

 

ANTHROPOMORPHISING: This is the human tendency to give inanimate objects “minds of their own”. For example; “the wind is fierce”, “my computer hates me” and “it’s Murphy’s Law”. It’s a natural next step to attribute actions, activities and processes to a supernatural being or beings.

Scientists argue this trait evolved as part of our natural “fight-or-flight” stress response process. Our brains have developed to assume that objects are “alive” and therefore a threat. For example, if you discarded that scary moving shadow as being ‘just a tree-branch’ when it was in reality a sabre-toothed cat, you’d be dead. In such a case, the survivors would be those who “jump at shadows”.

Mental garbage? Our brains use a complex interplay of formulas and scripts to create

Mental garbage? Our brains use a complex interplay of formulas and scripts to create “shortcuts” for the making of quick decisions. Source: Supplied

 

EVERYTHING HAS MOTIVE: This mental tendency is particularly evident in children. Everything is deliberate. Everything is directed at ourselves as individuals. Everything has a purpose. In short: “Clouds are for raining on me”.

Science believes this is a side-effect of our social natures. We have evolved to think about what other people are thinking in terms of objectives and motives in order to survive and advance in our social worlds. The brain just over-applies this attribute to the whole universe, including inanimate objects.

Nonsense or commonsense? The idea that humans and dinosaurs lived together is taking hold.

Nonsense or commonsense? The idea that humans and dinosaurs lived together is taking hold. Source: Supplied

 

TRIBALISM: Again, our social selves may get in the way of a challenging idea. The emotional need to belong to a group of people can easily overpower the cold, hard mental challenge of accepting an “outside” idea.

Science has long accepted that religion serves as a strong “social glue”. It produces unity – an evolutionary advantage when it comes to surviving as a group. But the same trait that produces religion also produces politics, tribalism and nationalism. New ideas always find such attitudes challenging.

Fine print? Is the conflict between evolution and intelligent design really based upon religion?

Fine print? Is the conflict between evolution and intelligent design really based upon religion? Source: Supplied

 

But the debate isn’t as simple as the above may imply.

And religion itself – while often the public face of the debate – does not appear to be totally to blame.

Today’s survey also found strong differences among religious groups.

Two thirds of US white evangelical Protestants believe God created humans in their present form while 78 per cent of white “main line” Protestants believe in evolution.

Three out of four religiously unaffiliated respondents believe in evolution and just 13 per cent of them believe evolution was guided by a “supreme being”.

The political divide is a little more clear-cut.

Only 43 per cent of US Republicans believe in evolution while 67 per cent of Democrats said humans have evolved over time

So blaming religion may be as lazy a mental process as the outright rejection of evolution.

Scientists argue it is just one byproduct of the basic mental traits our brain has evolved to cope with a challenging world.

Our mental programming combined with our emotional drives is what makes it so hard to accept mind-numbing concepts such as time and space.

Evolution is just the topic of the moment.

 

How does this story make you feel?

Excited
Happy
Indifferent
Frustrated
Angry

Other
Readers

 

 

Ads By Google

51 comments
185 people listening
ChadSimonWarrenRobinPatBernieJamieBenJasonKeith
+ Follow
Post comment as…

To comment or reply, please login or create an account.

Loading
Timothy

Timothy 5ptsFeatured

Here’s what’s really going on in my humble opinion. Neither creation / ID based nor “scientific” / atheistic based views on how we came to be here are likely to ever be completely provable. I personally have reservations about trying to objectively explain a system that we are a part of – is that even possible?!

Regardless, the debate eventually gets down to “pick a side, then create the most compelling argument you can in support of that side” – no less so than picking a football team then unwaveringly supporting it through your lifetime. I don’t believe I evolved from an ape, but I’m happy to admit it’s just that – a belief.  You won’t be able to prove beyond doubt that I did, and I won’t be able to prove that I didn’t.  Similarly, no one can conclusively prove the existence or otherwise of God or a spiritual realm, otherwise this would have been settled long ago.

So here’s a suggestion for 2014. How about we try to understand each other’s perspectives (on this and other issues) more, and mindlessly debate each other with the same overused arguments less?  Maybe even a bit of quality listening as well as telling! Any takers?

Bernie

Bernie 5ptsFeatured

Well, here’s the thing about the theory of evolution: you really must believe in miracles to believe in evolution. That’s because you need a triple miracle to commence the entire evolutionary process.

First miracle: from a completely sterile collection of dust, rock, sand, fresh water, salt water, mud, wind, volcanic activity, lightning, radiation etc (i.e. the world 4.5 billion years ago), something suddenly appears one day in a puddle of water which is alive and wriggling. Whoa! How about that! Let’s see some scientists replicate that little moment of magic! I mean, the whole point about scientific theories is that they can be replicated, can’t they? So it’s fair to ask: where is the replicated demonstration, using completely sterile base materials?

But that little miracle of instant life is, on its own, totally insufficient. Because you also need Miracle No 2: this pulsating blob of life must be able to feed itself, from its very first moments. Obviously – if it can’t feed itself, it’s gunna be real dead real quick, isn’t it? So you need the miracle to be a double miracle – (Miracle No 1) instant life that (Miracle No 2) can feed itself.

Now you need Miracle No 3, if the whole process is to be sustainable: the blob must be able to reproduce. Yep – reproduce – right from its earliest moment. I mean, if it is alive and can feed itself but can’t reproduce, evolution isn’t going to get very far, is it? So the beginning of life must have been an instantaneous triple miracle, or the earth would still be just a lifeless planet of completely sterile components.

What we need are scientists to demonstrate how a bunch of sterile components can produce a triple miracle of a blob of life that can feed itself and reproduce from the very beginning.

Once evolutionary scientists can do all that – well, the opponents to evolution will surrender en masse and the theory of evolution will reign triumphant.

But then let’s not ask about why there are now two sexes as opposed to just one: if the first life on the planet managed to replicate itself from itself, at what point and for what reasons did things split to become male and female?

There’s no doubt about it – the most fervent believers in miracles, above all others, are evolutionary scientists.

 

Ben

Ben 5ptsFeatured

@Bernie Well, maybe, but is the only other possible answer based on fairly recently developed Fairy Tales and a “God”?

Bernie

Bernie 5ptsFeatured

@Ben @Bernie   Ben – it’s like this: if the only possible explanation is something that seems either improbable or impossible – then the improbable or impossible must be correct.

Ben

Ben 5ptsFeatured

@Bernie No, when there’s two explanations put forward for an occurrence, and both are extremely improbable, surely the intelligent thing to do is to look for other explanations?

This comment has been deleted
Keith

Keith 5ptsFeatured

Snails replicate themselves.

Bernie

Bernie 5ptsFeatured

@Keith  Mate – that’s great. Show me a bunch of scientists who can produce a snail from a pile of sterile components such as mud, dust, rocks, sand and water. Your time begins now.

Howard

Howard 5ptsFeatured

@Bernie  –  – you said it right there: ‘at what point and for what reasons did things…?’

The whole point is that there is no ‘point’ of time, and no reasons behind what we choose to call ‘Evolution’ . Some things happened because they could :other things did not happen because they couldn’t.

Australia won the Ashes recently on much the same basis.

What is so hard about that?

Bernie

Bernie 5ptsFeatured

@Howard @Bernie   Howard – the trouble with the language of evolutionists is that it is always couched in terms of “choice” and “choosing”. They are the ones who continually imply that Nature makes decisions as to this development or that trait.

As to “point of time”  – well, there had to be a beginning, didn’t there? If so, where was it? And how did the triple miracle to which I have referred occur?

And why cannot that event be reproduced by today’s all-knowing, all-conquering scientists?

 

Steve

Steve 5ptsFeatured

@Bernie Evolutionists simply look at the evidence and accept the least complicated path to the present.  You argue about the impossibility of single-celled organisms starting life yet you accept that a complicated, intelligent life form capable of creating the universe can spontaneously self-assemble itself? Who is stretching credibilty the most?

Pat

Pat 5ptsFeatured

Man is the only “animal” that kills for greed, pleasure, political motivation……..if we are created in His image I think he left out a few things, after all he only had a few days to complete his task !!!

Warren

Warren 5ptsFeatured

Only a fool says in his heart, there is no God. For God has made it plain to mankind in creation. But our hearts have become darkened by the foolish thinking of our minds

Ben

Ben 5ptsFeatured

@Warren Which God?

Any truly eternal being would look at mankind’s inability to decide what God (Or Goddess, or an entire Pantheon) is in awe. We change the description, definition and our beliefs so often that if such a being watched us for even a few thousand years their head would be spinning.

This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
Jenny

Jenny 5ptsFeatured

It would be an interesting piece of future  research.  The IQ of people who believe in religion and those that do not.  I have a feeling the later cohort will prove far superior.

paul

paul 5ptsFeatured

Asking psychologists to explain evolution is like asking an electrician to prune my roses…

Jenny

Jenny 5ptsFeatured

People will believe what their brainwashed by society to believe.   Unless of course their educated to such tactics.

Chris

Chris 5ptsFeatured

Simply put, your cannot have order from chaos and that alone argues for design requiring a designer.  Intelligent design acceptance is vastly superior in its ‘science’,. The blind ignorance of the many theories of evolution that are so full of holes is rejected by thinking people and followed by brainless, gullible lemmings.  When “Evolution- A Theory in Crisis” was written some years ago, most scientist stuck their head in the sand and  wished it away.  But the thinking multitudes did the reading and the wholesale rejection of evolution has to happen because its simply not true.Many noted and teachable scientists ascribe to Intelligent Design. History is filled with “God fearing creationists who wrought so much blessing we enjoy today.

Michael

Michael 5ptsFeatured

@Chris Oh please Intelligent Design is complete hocus fabricated by you religious types in an attempt to remain relevant.

CommunistFree

CommunistFree 5ptsFeatured

The hypothesis of evolution is a religion – it is NOT  science, nor does it qualify even as a theory. I remember far back to my BSc days at UQ that the difference between a theory (testable & verifiable) and a hypothesis (untestable & unverifiable) is very important from a scientific perspective. The fact is evolution (turning microbes into anything but microbes) cannot and has not been shown to be happening at all, anywhere at any time. Evolution simply does not qualify as a theory on a micro or a macro level.

Indeed, on a macro level, one look no further than poor Dr Mary Schweitzer of the University of Arizona. This poor dear, like her mentor, the famous Jack Horner of Hells’ Creek fame, are so blindly welded to the religion of evolution that despite digging up dozens of smelly dinosaurs with identifiable blood vessels and decaying blood oozing out of them, simply cannot imagine that perhaps – just perhaps – these creatures are not millions of years old, but are in fact only several thousand. Unsurprisingly after 20 years of such finds (including the famous T-Rex), Dr Schweitzer cannot get her research published in any scientific publication? Why? Because the people behind such publications are so universally welded to the religious fantasy of the hypothesis of evolution, they cannot and will not countenace the fact there is even the slightest possibility they could be wrong.

As the Bible aptly describes such, “Pretending to be wise they became fools, and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things” (Romans 1: 22-23). Succinct, precise and clear – just like the process of Creation.

This comment has been deleted
Denis

Denis 5ptsFeatured

@CommunistFree  Your comments seem rather loose on facts in may ways regarding Mary Schweitzer’s and her research. On no account has there, (by Mary) been a suggestion of dinosaurs being extinct for only several thousand years, (still many millions). There is no fact of “digging up dozens of smelly dinosaurs with identifiable blood vessels and decaying blood oozing out of them”.
Mary Schweitzer has published many papers regarding her research, and with any scientific finding there are always those who accept accept her findings and those that are sceptical. Her findings are relatively new and of coarse all is open to peer review, and so it should be, until such time as further research by her and her peers further the theories.

CommunistFree

CommunistFree 5ptsFeatured

@Denis @CommunistFreeDenis, you are completely wrong. Dr Schweitzer’s conundrum is well known and well publicized, despite attempts by the mainstream media to keep it quiet. Type “double decade dinosaur disquiet” into Google and check out the results. Read them (with an open mind, not a religious evolutionist one if you can) and you can see for yourself. The fact that Mary cannot fathom what is plainly staring her (and her colleagues) in the face is eternally sad, but speaks for itself.

Gordon

Gordon 5ptsFeatured

Wow! Really really good post.

I wouldn’t even call evolution a hypothesis. At best I’d classify it as a supposition.

This comment has been deleted
Steve

Steve 5ptsFeatured

@CommunistFree An interesting feature of creationists is that they use flawed arguments to attack evolution, rather than advance their own (testable and verifiable) theories in support of creation/intelligent design. The logic of this approach goes something like this:

Science cannot yet fully explain how the moon got to where it is now. There are small gaps and uncertainties in present scientific theories about its beginnings and history to the present. Because of these doubts and uncertainties, my alternative theory that the moon is actually a gigantic egg laid by Esmeralda the Cosmic Chicken must be correct.  Incidentally, this alternative theory is to be found in 2000 year old books and is taught around campfires further adding to its scientific legitimacy.

Laughable?  This is creationist “logic” and “evidence”

 

This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
Stephen

Stephen 5ptsFeatured

I find it very offensive, and so would most of the greatest minds in history, your equation of the rejection of evolution with mental laziness. I believe it takes more mental energy to challenge than to blindly accept a notion. The universe is full of complexity yes, but this does not mean that evolution is complex. Evolution is only a way of attempting to explain the complexity of the universe arising from non-complexity by way of random natural processes over a massive amount of time. The assumption that those of us that reject this as being the reality of how we and everything around us came to be are mentally lazy is in itself mental laziness. We are also educated and have been spoonfed evolution from a young age by our science textbooks our teachers and the media. But if we through deep thought and investigation have come to the conclusion that the complexity of the universe cannot be the result of time and chance and blind amazingly fortunate accidents we must believe in creation right? But this makes us mentally lazy. lol

This comment has been deleted
James

James 5ptsFeatured

The modern world. The great leap backward. Onward to devolution.

Paul

Paul 5ptsFeatured

Can we really just condemn Americans.  I know many Qlders who exhibit the same symptoms but I always blamed their religious views.  It always seemed easier, in a very fast paced, complex, and dangerous world, for people to believe there is a higher being who will make it better and an afterlife where they can, basically, enjoy life.  Now, it seems, it is lower intelligence that is the cause.  Does that mean us atheist are the brighter people around?  Who knows!!

Mark

Mark 5ptsFeatured

@Paul there are More Younger that express the same Systems, A lot of the Older are embracing Technology and advancement, After all we were involve in start  of the techno age. I am Mid 50’s and was write Pac man programs at school. Still cannot spell without assistance. DO however agree with the rest of you comment.

CommunistFree

CommunistFree 5ptsFeatured

@Paul Yes Paul. Atheists are very bright. First there was nothing, then nothing caused the nothing to explode and create everything….sorry evolve everything. The nothing was so clever that it enabled  undirected purposes to create information out of no-information and un-chaos out of chaos, in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics aka Entropy. Wow. Atheists sure are bright. I would never have been able to work that out for myself…perhaps it’s because I’m too sensible :/

This comment has been deleted
Ben

Ben 5ptsFeatured

@Paul So …. There was nothing, then there was “God”, who made everything from nothing, is sensible?

Let’s cut to the chase, we don’t know, we’ll never know, there is no way to know. Simple.

Robin

Robin 5ptsFeatured

@Paul   I am totally offended by this reference to Americans.  Why pick on them?  Australians sicken me by their constant comparison with “what Americans think or do.”  Go pick on Norwegians, Germans and Greeks etc etc etc.

 

I have lived most of my life in the USA and a nicer, more generous people you will not meet. They also have advanced scence and medicine to forefronts that NO other countries can match.

 

Let’s see all of you critics dispose of your iPhones, computers, TV sets, and cars–  none of which would have become mainstream without America.   Jealousy, anyone?

Steve

Steve 5ptsFeatured

Evolution is a simple theory compared to intelligent design. I find it much easier to accept and understand a process of genetic change coupled with natural selection than a complicated, intelligent being which appeared out of nowhere which is busily trying to correct earlier design errors! If you can believe that an intelligent designer appeared without any intelligent design you shouldn’t have any problem with evolution!

Brad

Brad 5ptsFeatured

The real test of human progress is, are we further developing our IQ’s.   In view of the fact that we now have to rarely think for yourselves, referring to the Internet for answers, the answer must be that our IQ is probably no longer moving north, and is more than likely on a slippery slide south.   Just look at the status of our education system, that has clearly failed our children for at least 4 decades.   Very few students can write a comprehensive sentence, nor can they add up, subtract, or quickly to multiplication or division.   We ARE going backwards.

Bazza

Bazza 5ptsFeatured

Do we need to do those things anymore? The world is always changing and to lament the loss of that with which you are familiar simply shows a failure in your acceptance of change. Today’s kids (and adults) learn many different important things throughout their education, in the present day we can save time on trivialities by using a computer or calculator for the bigger and better concepts of an evolving world

Peter

Peter 5ptsFeatured

@Bazza What a fantastic notion……until one day the Internet gets fried and we then have to use what little brain power we have left to survive. The internet is a disaster waiting to happen.I believe Brad has made some valid points. Computers will never be a reliable substitute for brain power. Viruses, hacking and the like will see to that.

John

John 5ptsFeatured

Our schools fail to teach history so the next generation will know nothing of who we were; or geography so they’ll never comprehend where we came from.

Let’s not even get on the subject of manners, hence an ungracious, ungrateful clutch of knowalls who don’t have time to read (or spell correctly).

I look forward to the next ice age with some alacrity…or will some bodies supernatural being spare humanity?

Mark

Mark 5ptsFeatured

@Brad Don’t mix high IQ with the Ability to construct a sentence or Spell, Quite a Few of the smartest People around cannot spell or construct a sentence, Have a serious look at our Doctors. Education over the last 4 decades has improved, However we are dropping off in Subjects that don’t seem important any more,  We have become more creative more inventive but less incline to wright a Letter therefor l we are not exercising our ability in these subjects. Remember Maths is The ability to Add and subtract is a Bonus. Problem solving , However some get it wrong way around, And think the ability to add and subtract is more important than Problem solving. WE ARE MOVING FORWARDS, PS have a good look at some of the best English writers can they use a PC. With all its functions, And never Mix  Psychical laziness with Mental Laziness, They are very different beasts.

This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
Evan

Evan 5ptsFeatured

The interesting thing about evolution is that modern day society no longer wants anything to do with a natural selection process. Instead, we are hell bent on preserving those that any natural selection process would take to an early grave.

Trent

Trent 5ptsFeatured

If, Hamish, you think ID is obvious, then answer me this – who designed the designer? And if you can answer that, go another step and explain who designed the designer who designed the designer? Keep going and you’ll quickly recognise an infinite regress which can never be satisfactorily answered. There was no designer, and ID is complete piffle.

John

John 5ptsFeatured

Furthermore if the designer was so omnipotent can he/she create a rock so huge that he/she is incapable of lifting it? Hurts your brain to think that one through doesn’t it creationists??.

HamishMcgeach

HamishMcgeach 5ptsFeatured

You can eat you cake and have it, evolution is not incompatible with inteligent design. The brain goes by what it looks like, not what someone elses brain has deduced. Intelligent design is as obvious as geocentrism.

Ben

Ben 5ptsFeatured

@HamishMcgeach Evolution is not incompatible with inteligent(sic) design ? The brain goes by what it looks like ? Intelligent design is as obvious as geocentrism (sic) Hamish it is almost like you grabbed a cliche added some concepts you don’t understand and tried to make a point about who knows what. Happy New Year!

This comment has been deleted
Paul

Paul 5ptsFeatured

@HamishMcgeach Unfortunately Hamish, Evolution has so much evidence and makes so much sense that it is more then obvious.  Intelligent design is an attempt by religious folk who can see that evolution works but cannot let go of their deeply held religious beliefs.  To fit into your world design they have developed a theory, straight from their heads, with no evidence whatsoever, and say this is how it is.  What if God developed Bacteria 4.5 billion years ago and said “lets see what happens”. and here we are.  Why not use that as a theory as it fits with all the evidence except whether a God being started it all in the first place.

CommunistFree

CommunistFree 5ptsFeatured

@Paul @HamishMcgeach Priceless, Paul. There is zero evidence for evolution. Nowhere at any time has any palaeontologist discovered any transitional form in the fossil record. Nowhere. Supposition and hypotheses have flowed from finding similarity of design (oops..I said the scary “Design” word..sorry), but none of the millions upon millions of fossils discovered have ever been of transitional forms. Why? Because they don’t exist. As simple and as complex as that Paul. To correct your comment above, “Evolution has no evidence and makes no sense; it is more than obvious.”

This comment has been deleted
Robin

Robin 5ptsFeatured

@CommunistFree @Paul @HamishMcgeach

The evolutionary theory only explains small changes in the physiology and anatomy of living things. It simply cannot explain the complex changes that, say, are part of human development.  Looking back on why something seems to have created an advantage to an organism is all well and good but looking prospectively at what might be optimal choices poses a major headache because so many random variations have to take place in order for that ONE trait to dominate and if you multiply all possible variations in the anatomy and physiology of creatures there has not been enough time for all of these “perfected” changes to have occurred (in Earth’s history)   Darwin’s Theory is simply a simple explanation of changes that sit on top of profound anatomical and physiological  changes totally inexplicable by Darwin’s explantations.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply